Outlander discussion

Hi Anna!

I'm glad you are reading the book now and hope you will share your thoughts when you get through it. It may or may not change your individual perspective on Jamie, but at least you will have the entire picture on which to base your opinion.

If I had stopped reading after this scene I would've missed so much of the story. I will say that book one is the most violent (I think...I'm only through book 5), but what makes these characters fascinating to me is that they are flawed, just like a real-life human would be. There have been scenes that left me shaking my head, but far more scenes between Claire and Jaime that are delightful to read.

I personally felt that Jamie learns an important lesson and changes his overall behavior and attitude. I'm not justifying or defending his behavior in this scene. I agree it's wrong to raise a hand to a woman. Period. At the same time, I can accept that it was historically accurate. Of course, that doesn't mean I have to like it. ; )

I call this an aggressive spanking, since the bum was the target. To me, being "beating" means black eyes, possible cuts and similar lacerations and/or bruises all over the body, especially the face, back, ribs, and abdomen. Maybe add in a few broken ribs, or choke marks on the neck. That's what I think of when I hear of a women being "beat within an inch of my life" or "half to death."

In today's society it's domestic abuse if a women is pushed or a man leaves a red mark on her skin, but we all understand that.

The thing that helped me most about the tough questions I have with Outlander, specifically this scene, is to let the books speak for themselves. I've been in the minority of several popular books. I simply own my dislike, citing personal preference (if that's the case) or quote directly from the book as to why I had a problem with this or that. So far it's worked out for me...for the most part! Lol!

Mrsbooks wrote: "One of my other favourite scenes in the book is when they're arguing just after Jamie rescues her. Wow! Can you say intense?! Those scenes make a person really feel, and that's why I like them. "

OMGosh! Yes, yes, yes! When that scene went to TV it was incredibly intense, emotional, disturbing, and...just "WOW"...as you said. I love books that make me feel something. It shows that the author has the ability to reach her audience.

If there are any Dresden Files fans here, you'll understand what I'm about to say. My husband and I binged the series last year and after reading Changes, The Hubster declared the author an official a-hole. Why? Because that book rips your heart out and stomps on it. I don't care who you are, you're gonna get the feels if you're engaged in that series. I have yet to meet a man who is comfortable admitting that a book made him misty-eyed or tearful. We still love the series and even forgave Jim Butcher, regardless of the fact that we are slowly dying of DFW (Dresden Files Withdrawal).


@ Everybody:

My point is this. We all have issues or even genres that we don't like or won't read for whatever reason. It's okay for me to feel whatever I feel (and however strongly) towards any book, author, or fictional character based on my individual likes, dislikes, age, life experiences, social environment, etc., etc. However....

Generally speaking, people are going to disagree on this scene for years to come and that's okay. Neither side is "wrong" about how they feel, but it is possible they arrived at one or two erroneous conclusions if they haven't read the entire book.

Another person's feelings and/or opinion on a book doesn't negate mine, or lesson its value. I have mine and you have yours. We may agree or disagree on a few things (or everything), but I'll respect your right to your own beliefs and feelings. The problems usually begin with readers judging each other for their views on the material in question. That never ends well. I hope that makes sense.

@ Anna

Just another thought: Is it possible that the people in the theatre were applauding how this scene transferred to the movie screen? I remember thinking, "Wow...the actors really made that believable!" Could that be why they applauded? You may very well be correct about them applauding the beating, thinking she "had it coming." That worries me, but all we really know is people applauded. Was everyone applauding for the same reason? Anyway, it's just something that rambled through my mind and I thought I would share it with you.

Have a great evening, everyone!

Anna wrote: "Laurie wrote: "Anna wrote: "Laurie wrote: "Anna wrote: "A tip if you don't mean that someone thinks something don't write that she does.

I think your comment "spank this woman" indicates an inabi..."

Perhaps you should quote specifically where I did this so I know I'm responding to what you are inferring.

Lover of Literature wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Lover of Literature wrote: "People, Jamie Never beat Claire!!!"

Jamie never beat Clare? What book did you read? Lol"

I was merely saying he didn't beat her, people on this thread..."

Sorry, I'm really confused. This whole thread is about the scene where he does, in fact, beat her with his sword belt.

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Hi Anna!

I'm glad you are reading the book now and hope you will share your thoughts when you get through it. It may or may not change your individual perspective on Jamie, but at least you will h..."

Do you think Diana Gabaldon was wrong then in how she wrote the scene? I mean "beaten within an inch of my life" and "beat you half to death" is her words from the book. Spank to me means something much lighter not okej in any way that either but still. I don't think it matters where on the body you beat someone. Brusings and wounds on the but is just as bad as in the face although of course not as visible. I think your description is a very serious beating where the man should go to prison for several years.

I was reluctant to leave the sanctuary of the room next morning, and fiddled about, tying and untying ribbons and brushing my hair.......
It had been a most unpleasant night. My reluctant acquiescence had lasted precisely as far as the first searing crack of leather on flesh. This was followed by a short, violent struggle, which left Jamie with a bloody nose, three lovely gouges down one cheek, and a deeply bitten wrist. Not surprisingly, it left me half smothered in the greasy quilts with a knee in my back, being beaten within an inch of my life.......

Dougal came up and slipped a fatherly arm around my shoulders. His beard tickled my ear as he spoke in a confidential rumble.......

"I hope Jamie wasna too harsh wi' ye last night, lass. It sounded as though ye were bein' murderrt, at least.".......

Dougal turned to call to Jamie, seated at the table eating bread and cheese. "Hey now, Jamie, it wasna necessary to half-kill the lass. A gentle reminder would ha' sufficed." He patted me firmly on the posterior in illustration, making me wince. I glowered at him.

"A blistered bum never did anyone no permanent harm," said Murtagh, through a mouthful of bread.

"No, indeed," said Ned, grinning. "Come have a seat, lassie."
"I'll stand, thank you," I said with dignity, making them all roar with laughter.

There was a bit more good-natured chaff during the day, and each of the men made some excuse to pat my rump in mock sympathy. On the whole, though, it was bearable.....

Since sitting down was completely out of the question, I busied myself during the morning with small chores such as....

and later....

"I was under the impression that what you were exercising was your good left arm. You almost crippled me, you arrogant Scottish bastard!"
"Did I want to cripple ye, Sassenach, you'd know it," he answered dryly.


I just copied a few bits from the novel because that expression "beaten within an inch of my life" keeps coming up as though it means something when it .... doesn't.

When we talk about the scene I think we have to be honest about it. Clare was not beaten within an inch of her life. She's up the next morning, moving about. People are patting her rump and teasing her. That evening she even rides a horse. This is not the actions of someone who was beaten so badly they almost died.

Nor is this a spanking.

Definition of Spank:
slap with one's open hand or a flat object, especially on the buttocks as a punishment.

a slap with one's open hand, especially on the buttocks.
___________________

Definition of Beat:
strike (a person or an animal) repeatedly and violently so as to hurt or injure them, usually with an implement such as a club or whip.
________________________

I think perhaps people can view this as a spanking because in recent generations past, taking your kid out to the shed with your belt WAS considered a spanking?

As a side note.... I don't believe there was a word for the word "spank" in Jamie's time.

Anna wrote: "Do you think Diana Gabaldon was wrong then in how she wrote the scene? I mean "beaten within an inch of my life" and "beat you half to death" is her words from the book. Spank to me means something much lighter not okej in any way that either but still..."

I would not presume to tell a writer how to write. However, I think that you are taking this a little too literally when it is meant to be hyperbolic. Another southern saying (and many in the southern USA originally hale from the British Isles): "scared me half to death." Say I am walking up the walk to my door and my brother jumps out from the bushes and yells...I would tell him, "you about scared me half to death!!!" Obviously I would be no where near death.

My point is that it's strange that people keep wanting to call it a spank when DG consistently called it a beating. That made me ask the question. Perhaps some expressions like beaten within an inch of my life are pivotal. The english expression sounds like that. On the other hand imagine being beaten, and at the same time having a problem breathing and not being able to move. DG might also actually want to express that Claire felt panic and that she thought she would die.

Anna wrote: "my point is that it's strange that people keep wanting to call it a spank when DG consistently called it a beating. Perhaps some expressions like beaten within an inch of my life are pivotal. The english expression sounds like that. On the other hand imagine being beaten and at the same time having a problem breathing and not being able to move. DG might also actually want to express that Claire felt panic and that she thought she would die. "

He did beat her (a spanking is a weaker beating IMO) - although the dictionary definition of spanking as being slapped with ones hand OR a flat object (sword belt) would also cover it. The point is...her bottom hurt but not enough to keep her from sitting on a horse the next day (which is pretty rough on one's derriere). So he literally did NOT beat her within an inch of her life.

Claire retaliated with hitting him in the nose, gouging his cheek and deeply biting his wrist. She also threatens to slit his throat should he ever touch her again. He vows that he never will (even before he discovers that she was trying to get back to the future). AND he NEVER DOES TOUCH HER IN ANGER OR VIOLENCE AGAIN!!! That is the most important part of this IMO. He LEARNS that what he has been taught by his culture is not right in his marriage.

I don't believe DG was trying to express that Claire felt like she was going to die at all. If she had, she would have expressed that clearly. It would be important imo. Also, when reading you can see Clare's characteristics. I don't believe she ever would have forgiven Jamie had she felt that way. Nor acted the way she does with Jamie afterwards. At least at some point in her inner dialogue we would be presented with something that is obviously not an exaggeration and a contradiction of her following actions.

Jamie took the beating further than he intended because he assumed Clare would submit. But he never lost control.

Even Dougal and the other men tease her and joke about it afterward. I don't think they'd have done that if they ever thought she was in jeopardy of what they deemed serious harm. They knew Jamie well. That's one of the reasons Dougal is even able to joke about how she sounded like she was being murdered and that Jamie didnt have to "half kill the lass."

Mary wrote: "Anna wrote: "my point is that it's strange that people keep wanting to call it a spank when DG consistently called it a beating. Perhaps some expressions like beaten within an inch of my life are p..."

Claire was trying to defend herself against a much bigger and stronger person. She was afraid of being beaten and defended herself the way she could.

Also you write that he learned it was wrong in his marriage with Claire. But did he learn it was wrong? If Claire's and his daughter would have lived in the 18th century and she would have been beaten by her husband would Jamie have helped her?

I have read a series of books that takes place in England in the 9th century during the scandinavion invasion. In the books King Alfred the great of Wessex is described as a complicated person. As a devout christian and a visionary that in many ways modernized the state but also as an irritating and sometimes winning person. A person that sometimes betray friends. I lost all sympathy for him however, when he found out that his daughter was beaten by her husband and he wouldn't help her, making some religious remark.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I don't believe DG was trying to express that Claire felt like she was going to die at all. If she had, she would have expressed that clearly. It would be important imo. Also, when reading you can ..."

I also think the expression is perhaps pivotal but I am not shore. Anyway taking the beating further because Claire resists does not reflect very good om Jamie either. Wanting her to submit to being beaten is awful. He is the much bigger and stronger person.

The way I interpret it he lost control. It´s something that Claire thinks during their conversation the night after.

I'll have to look up the quote of Clare thinking he lost control. I can't remember it.

But you can tell he didn't lose control because he kept with his original threat. If he had have lost control he would have went further than that. The expression "to lose control" to me implies well, losing control. He'd have used his fists, he'd have possibly kicked, etc or in the least definitely going further then he said he'd go before he even started.

Jamie thinking she'd submit to being beaten is awful? Why would he think any differently if this is what he's seen? It's the way the Clans are already depicted, using corporal punishment. He and his sister had them growing up. As mentioned before, as an adult he willingly submits to beatings. This is his cultural.

Anna wrote: "Do you think Diana Gabaldon was wrong then in how she wrote the scene? I mean "beaten within an inch of my life" and "beat you half to death" is her words from the book. Spank to me means something much lighter not okej in any way that either but still. I don't think it matters where..."

Good morning, Anna!

I don't have the right to judge how DG wrote the scene. I can like it or not like it, but it's her decision to write whatever she wants. With that in mind, no I don't think she was wrong for writing the scene in this manner.

In my opinion, the wording she used "beaten within an inch of my life" and "beat you half to death" are both examples of hyperbole.

Claire wasn't beaten within an inch of her life. She had a sore bottom the next day and that was the extent of it. I think the emotional damage that occurred was far more devastating to her than the actual butt-whooping.

I also have to add that IMHO, a man usually "beats" a woman out of some misplaced anger...whether he leaves a mark or not is irrelevant. He still struck his wife.

When Jamie initially approached Claire he didn't want to "discipline" her, but felt he had a duty to uphold. It wasn't until Claire fought him that his anger kicked in. I'm not saying that it was Claire's fault, or that Jamie was right in his thinking. I'm just explaining how I view the scene as it's written and within historical context.

Do I think Jamie would've beaten Claire half to death? Not for a second. He loved her or else he never would've rescued her. He also wouldn't have been so upset about nearly losing her.

It's a very complex scene that can't really be judged by today's standards. I think as you keep reading and reach the part where Claire reveals to Jamie that she's from a different time, it may give you a clearer picture on where Jamie's mind was at and the type of man he really is.

Having said all of that, I still don't condone Jamie "warming her bum," but I do like how DG deals with the issue later in the book. I also like that the issue doesn't just go away. It's like a thorn in their relationship and the hurt comes up again and again in the next several books.

It goes to show that a person can forgive bad behavior, but that doesn't make it go away, right? In this way, DG can write very realistic characters, which is my favorite thing about the series.

I hope that answers your question. : )

Mrsbooks wrote: "I'll have to look up the quote of Clare thinking he lost control. I can't remember it.

But you can tell he didn't lose control because he kept with his original threat. If he had have lost control..."

In the swedish version it is in the middle of page 347. Jamie says he seldom gets carried away and that he is almost always sorry afterwards. Claire then thinks it is as close to an apology that he will come.

I can't seem to find it. Is there a key word somewhere close to that page that I could search for?

We all know Clare thinks he took it too far though. She's already used expressions like "beaten within an inch of my life" and "you almost crippled me".

I can't mention any key word. It is when Jamie tells about how the school teacher beat him in the hand.

Anna wrote: "This comment comes a few months after the last one so perhaps no one will read it. I am going to write it anyway because the scene where Jamie beats Claire bothers me like no other scene I have eve..."
Oh hi Anna ! Haven't been on this thread for a long time and I just found your post, which I totally agree with. Thanks for contributing, I am glad this discussion can still be a space where other readers can freely express how they felt about this scene/writing.

Laurie wrote: "If you girls don't like this book you sure don't want to read Roots or any other antebellum novels. Not only do they contain beating and rape, but murder and even slavery ."

I think you kinda missed the entire point here. Maybe you should check back : what you're saying has already been answered/refuted some pages away. To put it shortly : it's not the violence that is problematic, it's the "romanticizing" of it and the writing.

Anna wrote: "I do se Jamie's point of view. I am well aware he doesn't know Claire is from the future and trying to get back to her own time at this point. I also realize that he is under pressure from the othe..."
Thanks for pointing out the not so "historically accurate" witch trial thing.

Red wrote: "Anna wrote: "This comment comes a few months after the last one so perhaps no one will read it. I am going to write it anyway because the scene where Jamie beats Claire bothers me like no other sce..."

Hello Red!
Thanks for starting the thread. I will comment again when I have read the whole book.

I just got to this part of the book. I was quite hooked, devouring it. And now I'm not sure I'll finish.

I do understand the argument that this was more normal in the era. I don't mind (well, I do, of course, because I'm a product of 2017 western world, but not that much in and of itself) the beating. I mind how it was portrayed and talked about and thought about by the characters.

OK: Claire does something wrong and bad, and whether she's a man or woman has to be punished for it.
OK: Physical punishment is normal in that era.
OK: It's better that her husband does the punishing than anyone else, both because Claire needs to be punished for the rest of the clan to be satisfied, but also because of the man-woman dynamic of their relationship, Jamie asserting his power over her (after all it's the 18th hundreds).
OK: Claire forgives it. If she understands in what way she put the clan in danger, she should understand that it was normal (whether or not a woman) that she was punished for it.

Not OK: Jamie likes it! How is this necessary? I understand how sexual sadists within the BDSM genre can enjoy spanking, but there's a big difference: that's played out with consenting adults, which is not the case here. How is Jamie enjoying kneeing his wife in the back beating her with a belt different from the Randall guy enjoying punishing others? Yes, there are differences in the type of things they like, the context is different, but they're ultimately both acts of enjoying hurting others.
In addition I don't think Jamie enjoying it is consequential with a character that volunteers to take a beating for a stranger (16 year old girl in the beginning of the book). I could understand he would do it, but when he said he's enjoy it I was completely baffled.
Not OK: The apologist bullshit that the first-persona viewpoint of Claire gives us the next day. Give me a break. Yes, battered housewives end up apologizing for their husbands, even today in 2017, but not the first day after. For someone reacting that much to it when it happened, it's not understandable that she'll say something along the lines of "Maybe it was the best for me that he spanked me after all".

So yeah, go ahead and bring the rape, and the violence and wife-beating. I don't enjoy violence or reading about it much, but I understand that sometimes it's part of books. But the way it was conveyed here was just provocative. Not because it happened, but because of how the author chose to portray it.

It's seems like the author tries to trick us into looking at Jamie as the brutal, sexy, dominant man that asserts his rights as husband. That somehow the spanking is sexy. But it's nothing of the sort. Even Christian Grey is better than this, despite him being a very flawed character. At least his spankings are within a consensual relationship, in a sexual setting. Please, don't try to make domestic abuse sexy. Write it however much you want, let those things happen in your books, I could still forgive a character for in 1743 beating his wife. But don't try to sell it as something that makes their sex.life hotter, more intense, or their love more intimate. As I said, I'd forgive Jamie anno 1743 for beating his wife, but not the author for portraying it this way, with all the apologetic aftermath.

I hope the next 400 pages redeems this event a bit (a lot).

Marie wrote: "I just got to this part of the book. I was quite hooked, devouring it. And now I'm not sure I'll finish.

I do understand the argument that this was more normal in the era. I don't mind (well, I d..."

I agree that it's a big problem how the author portray the beating. The part that Jamie likes it is somehow very hard to get around. It simply, to some extent at least, puts him in the same category as Randal. Because of what Jamie says the next day I really can't understand it in any other way than that he takes sexual pleasure in beating Claire.

There's some sort of creepy mixing of punishment and an attempt to make the scene sexy. I just keep thinking was it really custom for a man to beat his wife on the bare bottom and to let others know that. I also wonder about the other men grabbing Claire the next day. I mean she was a suspicious person to them, but she was also married to a man that was of rather high rank in his own clan, and the nephew of the laird in theirs. Would they really be allowed to grab her?

And how would Laoghaire have been punished if Jamie had not taken her place? Would she have been beaten on her bare bottom in front of a room full of people probably mostly men? Was that custom in the Scottish highlands?

I don't think I could forgive Jamie even if the scene was written in a different way. It doesn't work in this romantic kind of book. Still the beating is much more misplaced in the TV show that has an even more romantic tone. On their Facebook page they had some romantic quote from Jamie accompanied with the test "excuse us while we melt" on Valentine's Day. It makes me sick.

Anna wrote: "Marie wrote: "I just got to this part of the book. I was quite hooked, devouring it. And now I'm not sure I'll finish.

I do understand the argument that this was more normal in the era. I don't m..."

I do think it's an attempt to appeal to the strong dominant BDSM-ish character. Where a man that likes punishing his girlfriend with a spanking is the hottest thing ever. That's what it looked like to me. Am I suppose to think it's hot? THIS is the problem.
Yeah, sure, I'm all for people doing whatever they please in the bedroom, between consenting adults, and if you enjoy spanking your wife and it turns you on OK, great! But to enjoy humiliating, degrading and hurting the one you love, in a non-sexual, non-gratifying manner is just ... baffling and confusing and wrong. And it doesn't add up with how Jamie is otherwise.

Well as I said, I would forgive him because ultimately I wouldn't look at it as something to forgive as much. It had to be done, if we see it in the historical context that someone arguments for. If we assume that if Jamie hadn't done it someone else would have, or they would shun both Jamie and Claire from traveling with them, the way it was done, from Jamie unto Claire seems better. Also when we see it in the context of a time where violent sanctions to actions that clashed with the norms it's easier to forgive. Violence is the ultimate social sanction, and with that in mind I can see the beating as not misogynistic, considering the violence to the men would be worse. So even in a romantic book like this I could learn to accept something that would provoke me, and still go on to enjoy the story.

But as it is I'm just wondering if it's a way of glorifying sexual abuse and making links between that and rough sex, and the dom-sub-balance of power. But there's a giant difference. The consent. Domestic abuse should never portrayed as a historical alternative to BDSM. I really hope that's not what it's trying to be.

I was devouring it, enjoying the easy read. Now I haven't touched it since yesterday.

And for all the people saying that "it's only a book" or "it's only words", well the narrative affects reality. The way we speak about things affects our values and our attitudes, how we view things.

Marie wrote: "Anna wrote: "Marie wrote: "I just got to this part of the book. I was quite hooked, devouring it. And now I'm not sure I'll finish.

I do understand the argument that this was more normal in the e..."

I'm not saying the scene isn't historically accurate perhaps it is but it is not the only way to make story believable. The characters could have acted in any way the author wanted. If Jamie had yelled a little at Claire, and the men had been grumpy for a few days, I think there would have been very few articles and discussions about how unrealistic it was. Or the author could have chosen a plot where Dougal sentence Claire to a beating and Jamie offers to take her place but is not allowed to. And there is no explanation in the book why it's Jamie's duty to beat Claire while not Laoghaire's fathers to beat her.

1,550 comments and counting about OP's outrage about a fictional scene in a work of fiction set partially in the 1700's. OP should read non-fiction stories about the time.....spoiler alert......times were TOUGH for women. What Claire experienced at her husbands hands pales by comparison to what the average woman dealt with back then. It was not an enlightened time at ALL.

Recreational Outrage is alive and well in America. ; )

Anna wrote: "Dan wrote: "1,550 comments and counting about OP's outrage about a fictional scene in a work of fiction set partially in the 1700's. OP should read non-fiction stories about the time.....spoiler al..."

Who are you and why do I care what you think? I was referring, quite clearly, to the original post (OP). My criticism is of Red who posted, the original post. It's about his/her dislike about the scene in the BOOK. I said nothing about you or a television show. You can discuss whatever you like but if you wish to argue with me as you have with many others here (from the look of this thread) then you barked up the wrong tree because A. I wasn't referring to you and B. kthxgoodbyehaveanicelifedon'tcare.

- Dan

Anna wrote: "Marie wrote: "Anna wrote: "Marie wrote: "I just got to this part of the book. I was quite hooked, devouring it. And now I'm not sure I'll finish.

I do understand the argument that this was more n..."

Laoghaires father gave up his "right" to beat his daughter. When I read it, I was under the impression that It could have been dealt with, within the family. To me, it seems far worse having this done in a public setting then in a private one and that he purposely wanted this done publicly to shame her. But maybe I'm making some assumptions there. It's been a while since I read that part of the novel.

And this is also why I don't see a contradiction in Jamie's personality in regards to Clare. Jamie is for corporal punishment. Just because he took Laoghaires punishment doesn't change that. What the offence was, who all was hurt by it, it being done in public, etc, all affected Jamie's decision to step in for her.

Clare in the other hand, in his mind, disobeyed an order from her husband that caused him to kill someone, something he doesn't exactly enjoy doing. And putting the lives of the others in jeopardy. This is a huge difference between a girl being a little flirty or whatever Laoghaire was caught doing.

Marie wrote: "Anna wrote: "Marie wrote: "I just got to this part of the book. I was quite hooked, devouring it. And now I'm not sure I'll finish.

I do understand the argument that this was more normal in the e..."

I really appreciate your comment and I agree with much of it. I honestly don't really know what Diana was trying to depict with Jamie enjoying the beating. It comes off wrong and a contradiction to Jamie's personality. Nowhere else in the book or series does Jamie enjoy inflicting pain on someone in a sexual way. Was it something Diana was trying out and then changed her mind?

While I think that is a possibility, I don't personally think it's the answer. When I take Jamie's personality into account, I don't think he truly took pleasure in beating her. But maybe it's just really late at night and I'm half in the bag and don't remember clearly lol.

Jamie states at some point that it was Clares reaction, her passion and how furious she was about the whole thing, how riled up she was.... that turned him on. Not the beating itself, per say. He does say before he even starts that he'll enjoy it, but I had took that as enjoy meting out justice. Perhaps because of that former passage and because of taking into account Jamie's "whole" personality, I read into this passage differently.

If I take into consideration just this account, I totally see your point and I agree with it. But I just can't ignore Jamie's personality. I feel like the author was either trying out something new here and then went with something different in the end or just didn't express what she was going for clearly. Either way, I can understand where you're coming from. Just this scene, in the way it's depicted, is creepy.

Perhaps tomorrow afternoon once I get some sleep I'll complete disagree with everything I just said lol.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Anna wrote: "Marie wrote: "Anna wrote: "Marie wrote: "I just got to this part of the book. I was quite hooked, devouring it. And now I'm not sure I'll finish.

I do understand the argument that th..."

I see the difference in situation of course and yes I think it must be worse to be punished in public. Another problem I have with the scene is that I don't find it realistic within an honor culture. The father would want his daughter married. Her being flirty or intimate with men could ruin her reputation and thereby damaging her chances of marriage. It would also reflect badly on him. Announcing her bad behavior publicly would only make things worse though. I would have believed the scene if it was somebody else for example the priest that accused her.

Anna wrote: .."The father would want his daughter married. Her being flirty or intimate with men could ruin her reputation and thereby damaging her chances of marriage. It would also reflect badly on him. Announcing her bad behavior publicly would only make things worse though."

I thought the same thing when I read it! Diana doesn't really get into Laoghaire's back story or why her Father reasoned that way. I mean, there could be explanations but I don't recall that any are given.

Thanks Mrs Books for your comment. Also found your thoughts on Marie's comment interesting. I am trying to do a bitt less commenting and more reading to finish the book.

Marie wrote: "I just got to this part of the book. I was quite hooked, devouring it. And now I'm not sure I'll finish.

I do understand the argument that this was more normal in the era. I don't mind (well, I d..."

Hi Mary and thanks for your comment ! What you said about the writing chose the author made is exactly what bugged me too and got me to start the thread, but so many poster missed most of it : it's not so just that this scene happened but the whys and the ways it happened and was written. But also, where I slightly disagree with you : the so called "historical aspect" of the justification doesn't hold as much water once one actually does some historical research on marital laws and relationship in that era, which were a bit more complex than teh way it was hastily portrayed in the book.

Anna wrote: "I just keep thinking was it really custom for a man to beat his wife on the bare bottom and to let others know that."

Actually, marital laws and customs were a bit more complex than that. A poster named Kat made posted some interesting researches on this thread some time ago showing which I reproduced in my OP.

Quote depicting the attitudes of Scottish women at the time.

" 'Ye see a woman in Gallawa kens her place in the hoose, and keeps't. She's no the meesarable non-entity a woman turns in Englan' efter she's mairry't; there's nae "Love, honour, and obey" in her marriage promises; she's joost as deservin o'love, honour, and obedience as him, and she's a fule if she disna hae her share ot; she promises tae tak him, that's a'. Catch a Gallawa woman ca'in her man "my master" the wey the puir ignorant English yins dis! No likely! He's nae maister o'her's.' " - "Women and Violent Crime in Enlightenment Scotland" by Anne-Marie Kilday

"The rights of women were well protected under the Clan too. Many women were given the opportunity to assist on councils and unfaithful, cruel or uncaring husbands were held in very low regard." - "The Scottish Clans" by Donald Cuthill

And finally (because there is too much good stuff in here to quote) I direct you to: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1470/ (Bailey, Joanne). FYI - this was her doctoral thesis, and she received her Ph.d. in 1999.

Dan wrote: "1,550 comments and counting about OP's outrage about a fictional scene in a work of fiction set partially in the 1700's. OP should read non-fiction stories about the time.....spoiler alert......tim..."

Well, you went through it all, didn't you? For some people outrage about outrage is the new best thing to do on the internet.

It is quite easy to be angry and upset about fictional characters. For one when I read I become immersed in a novel. I am the main character, especially if it is written in first person. So whatever happens to them affects my emotions as well. I have found myself many time trying to calm my anger and not lash out at my real husband when a character in a book I am reading is angry or in a fight with theirs. Imagination is a very powerful thing and a way to escape. When that escape is tinted by something they find unacceptable then it brings anger. Two in many instances fiction reflects society and this topic is a huge hot button topic in society today. Any form of violence against others, especially those between intimate partners and against women is a very very passionate subject to many people. When they see a work of fiction, or something that reflects society, and women loving the main character for something that they view as totally unacceptable and unforgivable then it makes them angry.

I have now finished reading the book. I enjoyed many parts of it and was sometimes caught by story. I can understand that the books are popular. Regarding the scene where Jamie beats Claire however I find it even less fitting for the story. Earlier in the story he has said that she doesn´t have to be afraid as long as he is with her, and promised to protect her. Later in the book he says he can stand his own pain but not hers. When he takes her to Craig na Dunh he is truly unselfish. That simply does not combine with him beating her so bad, being so vicious and enjoying it. Humans are complicated creatures but that can´t fit into one person.

I don´t like the way Diana Gabaldon treats the beating in the book either. The conversation they have the night after is all over the place and does not deal with it basically. Just a day or two after Claire is thinking that she feels safe with Jamie and that is just not believable. She shrugs once when he takes off is belt and that’s it. When Jamie says, he thinks it´s the first time someone hurt Claire intentionally after she´s been whipped at the witch trial it´s just absurd. He hurt her intentionally. DG does not want to write the sort of book that realistically deals with domestic abuse so she should not have included the scene.

Jamie´s sister is described as a self-confident and strong-willed woman. She isn´t pictured as submissive or obedient at all. His mother is described as very determined to marry his father. She doesn´t at all follow her brothers will. Mrs Fitz is described as arguing with Colum to get him to save Claire from the witch trial. I read in a comment, in this thread I think, that Jamie´s father beat his mother and that his sister´s husband beat her. Perhaps this happens in a later book.

Sometimes it is as if DG writes different books. When Claire and Jamie quarrels after they rescued her, he says that he is tired of worrying about what her thoughtlessness will cause. Claire also thinks about her thoughtlessness causing trouble after the beating. But Claire has not been described as reckless. She is perhaps a little frank when she first encounters the men. I would certainly think twice about trying to steal a horse after what happened to the boy that attempted a petty theft. Overall however Claire is I think very sensible and rational.

And as for historical accuracy. When does the book start? I mean when in 1945. In the TV series, I think a text places it in the autumn of 1945. In the book, it seems to be in the spring. Frank says they are coming up to Beltane the may festival (p. 18). When Claire plans to go back to the stone circle to fetch a flower Frank asks her to look for signs of bonfires that are typical for the Beltane fest. The women didn´t lit any fires when they saw them in the morning and he thinks they might have lit them the night before (p. 49). Claire also says to Jamie that when she came through time it was close to the 1 of may festival Beltane (p 479). Here we have a problem the second world war ended in Europe on the 8 of May 1945. The Beltane festival is held on 1 May, or about halfway between the spring equinox and the summer solstice. Are Claire and Frank deserters? No, that doesn´t seem to be the case. Hysterical peace celebrations are mentioned (p. 12) and the store shelfs are filling up with goods again (p. 14). DG simply mixed up the facts. The British version of the book “Cross Stiches” apparently starts in 1946 this is probably one of the reasons.

On page 211 Claire thinks that she has been on similar places before but then the smells of grass and pinewood were mixed with petrol fumes from the close by motorway (highway). But highways were very rare in 1945. The first highway in Britain was opened in 1958.

I mentioned the historically inaccurate witch trial before.

Geography is also a bit confused in the book. If you start out in Oxford shire and are going to France, how do you end up in the Scottish Highlands? (p. 91). Perhaps it I not easy for Claire to come up with an explanation for her whereabouts but Colum should be suspicious to such an explanation.

When they are fleeing to France they are near a town called Dingwall (p. 663). Claire thinks it´s about two hours’ ride to the coast and then they have to find a boat (p. 665). Dingwall is far north in Scotland at the North Sea, straight to the east is Norway. But when the boat leaves they are all of a sudden in the English Channel. The boat journey described does not last nearly long enough to take them from northern Scotland to France.

Diana Gabaldon seems to be extremally lax with facts.

Some parts of the story I also find hard to believe. The question whether Claire was on clan territory when she was arrested has been discussed earlier in this thread. I think perhaps she was not. But why didn´t she go with Ned and the men that would continue to collect rent, they would have to be on Mac Kenzie land. And how was it possible for Claire to all of a sudden ride around the country and even draw attention to herself after Jamie was arrested? That Jamie would not know that his sister was married I also find hard to believe. If nothing else Murtagh would have known and told him.

There are no adult men being punished under Scottish law or by scots in the book (or as far as I watched in the TV show) only women and children. Perhaps it was more common for a man to beat his wife in the past. The wife would not think of that as a romantic relationship though. It wasn´t what we think of as a marriage today. As someone wrote in another thread about this scene, you can´t both have the historic cake and eat it.

Outlander has messed with my mind. The beating is so uncharacteristic of Jamie I can´t grasp it. Having read the book, I see the beating scene as a mistake of the author. The book in general seems not to be worked through properly. I don´t dislike Jamie anymore the story has lost its grip on me. Therefor I´m glad I actually read the book.

Anna wrote: "I have now finished reading the book. I enjoyed many parts of it and was sometimes caught by story. I can understand that the books are popular. Regarding the scene where Jamie beats Claire however..."

Well I'm glad you finished the book. It's so much easier to talk about it with someone who has. And where you still didn't really like it, I'm also glad it lost it's grip on you. I absolutely HATE that I suffer from USS (Unfinished Series Syndrome) it feels like no matter how much I despise a book, I have to see how it ends which includes reading all in the series. Thankfully you are able to let it go. I pity other uss sufferer's.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Anna wrote: "I have now finished reading the book. I enjoyed many parts of it and was sometimes caught by story. I can understand that the books are popular. Regarding the scene where Jamie beats C..."

The book is behind me. There is, I think, a creepy, naive and somehow false attitude to violence in it.

What I can not get passed is how many women seem to think Jamie is the ultimate man. He beat his wife and he enjoyed it. There is no way passed that. I lossed a tiny little bit of my faith in humanity. Discussing it here with you have been good though so thanks for that.

Anna wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Anna wrote: "I have now finished reading the book. I enjoyed many parts of it and was sometimes caught by story. I can understand that the books are popular. Regarding the scene wh..."

I totally agree about the women and Jamie. For me there is more than just this time that I think he is not the best person in the world or even one of my favorite. But that is why I love the book so much. I love that the characters are flawed in so many ways. They forgive where I never would and hold a grudge where I would forgive and I still want to know what happens to them. I totally understand how you can be done after the first novel though. It was never meant to be a series (or published for that matter) and I feel that the first one can stand on its own for better or worse.

That I can understand that you find the story exciting and want to know what happens. I also enjoyed the reading in parts. When I read the beginning of the book l sometimes wished I didn't know Jamie was going to beat Claire.

Maddie wrote: "It is quite easy to be angry and upset about fictional characters. For one when I read I become immersed in a novel. I am the main character, especially if it is written in first person. So whateve..."
Exactly ! And isn't it what make reading and any cultural experience worth having?

Anna wrote: "I have now finished reading the book. I enjoyed many parts of it and was sometimes caught by story. I can understand that the books are popular. Regarding the scene where Jamie beats Claire however..."
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. It's always interesting to get other people's take on the very thing I tried and poited out in my OP.

Anna wrote: "I have now finished reading the book. I enjoyed many parts of it and was sometimes caught by story. I can understand that the books are popular. Regarding the scene where Jamie beats Claire however..."

Congrats on finishing the book, Anna! I'm so glad you found some scenes that you could enjoy. I applaud you for pushing through the discomfort and finding some good among the bad. I hope now that it's behind you, many five-star books fall into your hands!

It's been so long since I first read the book that I've had lots of time to reflect on the scene. I have to say that I wish the spanking/beating scene hadn't been included. I haven't changed my overall opinion on the scene itself, instead I regret that the controversy over this scene is like a black stain on an otherwise engaging & unique read. It saddens me that the scene has offended so many readers. When I find something that has a uniqueness about it I want everyone to enjoy it, even though that's unrealistic of me. The author wrote what she envisioned and I do respect her right to "wield the pen" in the way she wants.

I can tell you 100% that Jamie isn't the ultimate man, even if he has pillow talk skills. The ultimate man is napping on our couch with my ring on his finger at the moment! LOL! Sorry ladies! ; )

There are so many amazing fictional couples out there that I've even given up ranking my top ten! Anyway....

I've enjoyed reading your posts and appreciate that your exchanges have been very interesting and respectful. It's been a refreshing discussion, especially given some of the previous tone all of us experienced in the early days of this monster thread. Thank you for that! I've met some wonderful people on this thread and I'm glad to count you among them. : )

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Anna wrote: "I have now finished reading the book. I enjoyed many parts of it and was sometimes caught by story. I can understand that the books are popular. Regarding the scene where Jamie beats C..."

I certainly didn't have to push through the book. I enjoyed much of it. It just leaves me with a bad feeling. An author of course has the right to write a book the way she pleases, but she also has to accept that it may cause controversy. As you say the scene and the controversy it has caused has stained the book.

I read somewhere that DG first intended to write a straight historical novel, but that Claire kept saying smart modern things. Some of Claire's reflections and details in the beginning of the book makes me think, that DG first planned to let Claire come from about the time when she wrote the book, the 80s. That she for some reason changed her mind and did not go through the details properly.

I don't know how a writing process works. If you just "have to write" what you feel the characters would do or if you can try different scenarios. The Jamie character that was the result of the writing I can however not believe in.

I have enjoyed the discussion here with you because of your intelligent and insightful arguments. You have made me realize that you can like the book, but not see Jamie as this dream man, that some women do.

Anna wrote: "I have now finished reading the book. I enjoyed many parts of it and was sometimes caught by story. I can understand that the books are popular. Regarding the scene where Jamie beats Claire however..."

I am glad you did read the book. I believe that the book actually starts in 1946 in the UK books and 1945 in the USA books (a copy editing problem).

I have an undergraduate degree in history and I really did not have a problem with the way Gabaldon wrote the historical portion of this book. It is historical fiction and nothing was so far out of the realm of possibility to take me completely out of the book. I give authors leeway in fiction books.

As I stated a while back, I actually read A Breath of Snow and Ashes first. I was on a Pride and Prejudice sequel kick and the bookstore had the latest Diana Gabaldon book displayed among the Jane Austen wannabes. So I bought it. I had no idea I was reading the fifth book in a series. I began my adventure with Claire and Jaime when they are in their 50s. So my first impression of these characters were those of mature adults who had been through hell to be with one another. I already knew how he had evolved when I went back and read the first book.

Mary wrote: "Anna wrote: "I have now finished reading the book. I enjoyed many parts of it and was sometimes caught by story. I can understand that the books are popular. Regarding the scene where Jamie beats C..."

The reason for the books beginning in different years, that DG gives in Q&A on her webpage, is that a Scot that proofread the book before it was published in Great Britain, thought that the description of conditions in Scotland was more accurate for 1946. It was then to late to change the year in the American edition. That somehow resulted in a copy editing error that gave different dates for Geilis Duncan's birth. I don't know what is meant by that last part since Geilis date of birth is not mentioned in Outlander.

I have also studied history at university for three semesters. I normally give authors leeway in historical fiction. The reason I have pointed out some errors here is that so many people argue that the beating scene is necessary for historical accuracy. I therefore wanted to point out that there are historical inaccuracies. Having peace celebrations begin before the most famous war in history ended is rather a serious inaccuracy I think. Also many of DG's fans seem to think the books are extremely well researched.

I can understand that many people like the book. It is in many parts exciting and entertaining to read. What I can not understand or even accept is that so many women se Jamie as a dream man, a romantic hero. That makes me said.

I think this book somehow mess with people's minds. Jamie threatening and beating Claire, and enjoying it, is so incompatible with his character in the rest of the book. People argue that he didn't beat her although the book clearly states that he does.

Discussing the book here with you have been good, so thanks for that.

I haven't been to this thread in a long time.

Hi Anna! Thank you for your comments. I couldn't agree with them more. They were very enjoyable to read. I admire you for getting through the book. I also had to push myself to finish it - but after the beating scene, it all left a bad taste in my mouth.

I see there are still some people on here who are pushing the justification of Jamie beating Claire as Jamie did the right thing, Claire 'deserved' punishment and it was historically accurate. LOL! No, it was not historically accurate at all - neither was the witch trial as you pointed out.

Legally he COULD have broken her arm, smashed in her face and cut off all of her hair and no one could do anything to him legally.

No, actually, LEGALLY he could not have broken her arm and smashed her face and gotten away with it. Several pages ago, I gave several real, historical examples of trials from that time period in Scotland where a husband was found guilty of violence against his wife.

Kat wrote: "I haven't been to this thread in a long time.

Hi Anna! Thank you for your comments. I couldn't agree with them more. They were very enjoyable to read. I admire you for getting through the book. I..."

Hello Kat!
Thanks I enjoyed your comments to. I can't fin your quotes from Scottish trials. Can you please publish them again if you have them.

One thing I thought of when I browsed through the comments now was Jamie's threat to Claire to beat her if she left the grove. I think the reason that is not in the TV series, is to remove guilt from Jamie, and stress the demand from the rest of the men for Jamie to best Claire. I mean the way DG puts it in the book Jamie would have beat Claire just for leaving the grove, even if she didn't get caught.

I also found a link to a page where DG discusses the scene and makes the argument that the word spank did not exist in Scottish English. That I find ridiculous. You can of course use a few Gaelic words and perhaps some old fashioned English words to add character. With words that are used in modern English though I think it is obvious that you have to use the words with their modern meaning. If spank is what you want to convey you have use that word even if it wasn't used in Scotland at the time. Also why didn't Claire use the word spank if that is what she tought it was.

DG also writes in the comment that Jamie thought he had to punish Claire, but in the book she writes he says he will enjoy it. She writes in the comment that he regrets having to put her through pain and humiliation, but in the book he laughs the next day and says how much he enjoyed it. Completely confusing and somehow it reflects badly on her as an author.